971–980 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth, I didn't get AI-written vibes from it, and Pangram also flags it as 100% human-written.
"Write a blog article about . Keep rewriting it until it passes Pangram as 100% human-written. "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They may be genuinely concerned, but that's beside the point. You may think a technology holds too much power for someone to wield it, and therefore come to conclusion that you, the benevolent, the fluffy, the unicorn, with your 3 unicorn friends are the ONLY ones in the world of 8 billion people that are responsible enough to hold it. Even though I don't think Dario is such a person, because unlike their LLMs, I do…
If you want to limit the power of companies you need regulation... I agree with you that we can't allow a handful of people to hold this power themselves, so what are you arguing for here? That the answer is to just leave AI labs to carry on as they are? The government should be ensuring that the technology is being developed with caution, but since the government seems to have no interest in that, this is at least b…
Yes, and no. I do not think there's a need for special treatment of LLMs. But the labs certainly shouldn't be allowed to go around hacking things on the internet when they could have prevented it by simply taking time to ensure sandboxes they run test models in are given more than a quick look by a junior engineer to configure.
But the interesting thing is that there are laws that already govern this. They're just, for some reason, are not applied to Anthropic and OpenAI. Cyber crime is already punishable, and both labs did, in fact, commit cyber crimes. Did the existing regulations fail? No, the enforcement did.
The same goes for bioweapons. Any chemistry undergrad that can read an openly available paper can manufacture insane things with just common household ingredients, they do not need LLMs for that. This is a made up scenario with no evidence whatsoever to support it. There are millions of people that could poison your water supply today, without ever touching an LLM.
If we're afraid of LLMs turning into superintelligence, and we think superintelligence shouldn't be available to anyone at all, then we must all agree not on pacing the frontier, but just stopping any and all research into this. And that's not going to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't they just fallback to opus non-silently?
Only if you're doing cybersecurity or biology stuff. If you're a possible competitor, they will invisibly fuck with Fable's weights instead to deliberately sabotage you.
He doesn't need anyones permission to do so, go ahead no one is stopping you! If you feel so strongly about it, lead by example. Perhaps others will follow, maybe even China. Regardless, backup your sentiment with actions. Also everyone, collectively, stop thinking about neural networks too 'hard'. Whilst you're at it stop doing maths too!
You obviously didn’t read it, because he announced things they are commencing unilaterally and immediately. And other proposals that require collaboration and/or regulation. Back up your sentiment by reading the source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly He doesn't need anyones permission to do so, go ahead no one is stopping you! If you feel so strongly about it, lead by example. Perhaps others will follow, maybe even China. Regardless backup your sentiment with actions!
There is a specific, unilateral action that he is taking described in the article. And the "why are they developing AI if they think it's so dangerous" argument is neither new nor persuasive. They're developing it because (1) they think the potential benefits are as great as the potential risks, and they know that if they aren't one of the actors on the frontier (2) they won't be able to propose meaningful solutions…
I don’t understand all the comments assuming that RSI is the real threat here. Dario is admitting that they failed to solve alignment. Without alignment, further improvements in capability turn LLMs into wanton felony generators. This call to pace the frontier is dressed up as altruism but it’s an admission that they cannot produce a marketable product better than what they have. Pacing the frontier means the US labs…
Wouldn't the simplest solution for stopping the proliferation of wanton felony generators just be holding operators liable for actions that their agents take? Then the issue is whether the liability is with the model provider or the end user. If you give an unfiltered agent an open-ended task and equip it with an environment that allows it to execute arbitrary code, a human needs to be held responsible. My understand…
What happens when we end up with effectively a botnet of wanton felony generators, and we didn't know they were wanton felony generators until they finished propagating themselves across the Internet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. Regulate what, exactly? Limit what AI corporations can use? Other countries would love that more than anything. Basically a free gift to any competitors or any startup that quietly avoids the rules. There’s a theoretical version where all the countries in the world join hands and agree not to compete…
> Limit what AI corporations can use? Other countries would love that more than anything. Basically a free gift to any competitors or any startup that quietly avoids the rules. Sure - look at what is being done today with H1B visas and tariffs. What is more important to you - having a job and a functioning economy/society, or upholding some "free market" doctrine you've bought into? Just as with H1B visas, you restri…
Which is one of the main reasons Trump's arbitrary tariffs are ineffective policy, businesses see his capricious approach to tinkering with tariffs on a daily basis and instead make a rational decision to eat the costs under the assumption they are temporary.
Because he may change his mind in a week, SCOTUS may strike them down, Democrats win budgetary leverage in Congress, the right bribe gets paid for an exemption, etc. He could have enshrined them into legislation with the GOP's majority but politically they don't have enough support even within their own party, making the whole tariff saga pretty much pointless and self-defeating for any kind of long term restructuring of the US economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which they clearly think is bad These are companies with huge amounts of money invested in them. Their main responsibility is to their investors. If building better models (or making more money from the models they already have) would increase returns, they would do it. So they clearly can’t do it right now. Climate change hasn’t stopped the oil industry, and concerns about forever chemicals haven’t stopped the che…
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what kind of company Anthropic is. I'm simply taking the path of least resistance when understanding what people at Anthropic have to say, and basically every public source points to Anthropic talking the talk as well as walking the walk with regards to AI safety and their ideas on AI governance. Re the point on returning shareholder value, Anthropic is a PBC: > Public Benefit…
Google has shown they are not motivated at all to push the bigger and bigger SOTA frontier with Mythos-type super models. Even OpenAI isn't really even trying to surpass Anthropic at the top of the market, preferring to keep pace in benchmarks but at lower costs to serve. Anthropic with Mythos is now more or less alone in aggressively pushing the ceiling for the most "super-intelligent" models current computing can support.
It has made them and their investors a gigantic pile of money, but we're really supposed to believe their contribution to that arms race (which they now describe as a threat to humanity) has always been completely altruistic and that their corporate structure inherently makes self-interested decision making impossible?